Most ridiculous statement of the day.

Of course, I didn't say Bob was giving money to the government. I said the government took it to give to poor people. That's 'income redistribution', and it's supported by legislation such as the graduated income tax system and ceo salary caps. Currently, 20% of the population pays 80% of the taxes. And you're partially right : I lot of the mega rich aren't part of that 20%. Instead, it's the upper middle class taking the burden. The small business owners, the mid level CEOs. All these tax cuts for the rich, that's where they are aimed, not at the mega rich - they already dodge their taxes anyway. It's relief for the small business owner, and allows them to invest more in their business, to employ more people, and grow the economy even more. Bush has done some things right. Our economy is amazingly good for wartime. 9/11 should have put us into a depression, so should the war in Iraq. Yet here we are, just clicking along...

I'm not saying that the 'neocons' are any better, but merely that taking peoples money to give to poor people doesn't work either. We've already seen socialism fail big time in Russia, why are we so eager to make all the same mistakes again?

Tax cuts for the upper-middle works when you raise taxes for someone else. It doesn't work when it's just a tax cut; especially during war time. Especially when the government makes absolutely zero effort to cut spending in other areas. Especially when the government then goes on to spend more than any other administration ever.

I never said the Democrats were better than the Neocons. I just said that Neocons were irresponsible and their fiscal policy is preposterous in every other way. And as much as they like railing away on social programs, I never once saw Bush eliminate a social program. In fact, I'm pretty sure I saw healthcare spending increase and I'm pretty sure he made the US government even bigger, even slower and even more expensive than it's ever been.

That, good sir, is what I call irresponsible fiscal liberalism. That's actually what Bush's cronies are, in case you didn't know: 'reformed' liberals. 'Reformed' in the sense that they got too old to drop acid and have unprotected sex. The only real difference between modern Republicans and Democrats is 20 years and phony evangelism.


And unless my stock portfolio lied to me, 9/11 did put the American economy in a rut. I'm going to disagree with you about the tax cut fixing the problem and suggest that it was, instead, the military-industrial complex coming to full bear. A lot of companies have made a lot of money off of America's constant state of warfare since 2001.

What we need, then, is obvious. A return of true conservatism.

Agreed.

I think I just died a little inside.

WTF? I don't think he's said that to ANYONE before...

Dear God...

It's happened, the end is nigh!

We need to cut taxes across the board. And the poor should pay more taxes than the rich, because they don't contribute as much to society. It wouldn't be a problem if we stopped government funding to shelters. Those things are going to drive our nation into the ground.

And they say satire is an art.

Um...was that a joke, Obi? I can't tell.

Me neither.

And that is why the internet is awesome.

Why, because you've displayed enough idiocy that we can't tell whether that's a joke or something you really think?

It's satire. Not very good satire, but, still. Satire.

Though I don't understand who so many people think the rich should pay a higher percentage of their money in taxes. I'm all for a flat tax rate. Of course, we'd need a government that spends less first. As it stands now, the only things out government can do effectively are collect taxes and spend tax revenue. They used to be good at fighting wars, but we haven't fought any in a while so that's up in the air.

If we don't have percentage taxing, the distribution of income becomes too concentrated, and an economy fails. That is, no consumers, thus no sales, thus no economy.

wow. i think i actually agree completely with Jon`C for once.

JediKirby, not so. In fact, the ability of the rich to invest money is one of the biggest driving forces in our economy. The more money they have to spend, the more they will, and everyone is better off.

And the bigger issue is the moral one. Is it fair in any way to demand that someone pay more just because they have more? Why should the rich guy pay 50% when I only pay 25%? Most of these rich people you all want to screw over so badly work really hard for their money. After they've clawed their way to the top, do we have any right to take it away? I want all taxes to be lower. I already pay too much, and the government can't use that right anyway.

And don't even get me started on the death tax. That's blatantly unconstitutional.

Wait, you're telling me that the sickeningly wealthy can attribute their wealth to one thing? There are certain social contributions to society we are all expected to make based on what we've been given by society. I don't believe you can name a rich person who "clawed their way up" who didn't pay minimum wage to someone else.

Is there something wrong with paying minimum wage?

You betray your bias with phrases like "sickeningly wealthy."

[edit: 1000th post.]

What I mean is that bob makes money off of Jason working minimum wage.

I guess Jason needs to look for a better job.

If Jason doesn't like it, he can find another job... no one's forcing him to work for Bob... unless Bob is...

hmmm... i actually mostly agree with that. however i think that percentage tax is perfectly acceptable and advantageous, to a degree.

No, because people on the internet get so emotionally involved in every single petty issue that they their priorities and sense of reality become completely whacked.

The moderates decide who wins the general election. It's the extremities of each party that decides who runs in the first place. It has always been this way and it always will be. During the primaries candidates move to their respective fringes in order to get the nomination and then miraculously their views start moving towards the center. Happens every election. Even now Romeny has begun reshaping his normally liberal views on abortion and stem cell research to conform with the traditionally conservative view. Clinton has begun compensating for her initially support of the war in Iraq in order to get the approval of the far left. I guarantee that if either one gets nominated, they will yo-yo right back to the center.

Not someone. Something. Instead of directly shifting taxes from one group to another, you can do it in better ways, such as taxing items. The luxury tax comes to mind.

When a certain percentage to person X is their meals for a week and the same percentage for person Y is they have to wait another month before being able to finance their 5th Rolls Royce?

The flat percentage is a horrible idea. The government requires a large sum of money to run. If you expect everyone to pay the same percentage in taxes and still have the same amount of money to run the government, the lower class will be crushed! Poverty will go out of control with people that can't afford to eat, pay for shelter, or spend money for commercial goods that pay other lower/middle class people. So, in reaction to this, you lower the universal tax percentage down to wear the lower/middle class can now actually make a living. But then the government doesn't have nearly enough money to operate because you also had to reduce their main source of income, taxes on the rich. The government quickly goes bankrupt. A tiered tax system is a necessary thing. The lower and middle classes are only capable of paying so much. The rest must come from the rich. The question of whither it is fair or not is irrelevant. It's necessary.

Also, I want to make sure everyone understands I'm talking about a tiered tax system, NOT socialism wear the rich easily get taxed twice the income percentage they do now.

I agree with this sentiment, and while I too don't want to swing so far to a social standard where the percentage is THAT much different, I do believe that the tiers need to be adjusted slightly to lower tax percentages on the lower class and raise them an equal percentage on the upper class. This will effect the middle class very little, change the total dollar amounts little and relieve strain on the lower class.

How about leaving the tax curves as-is, but put capital gains on the same curve and eliminate tax shelters?

Strikes me that it would fix the problem without increasing the financial burden on the poor.

"But Jon`C," you might say. "Wouldn't that hurt the richest 1% of the population that controls 80% of the wealth and who don't really contribute anything to society except driving up oil prices and birthing annoying harpy crotch-spawn like Paris Hilton?"
And then I might respond by saying, "...and the problem with that would be...?"

Perhaps though we should concentrate on cutting spending rather than cutting taxes. After all the budget is really the root of the problem. We could do so many things, like cutting high school sports, streamlining the military and privatizing inefficient social services.

Because really, "making the rich pay" is a poor solution. It's still taking money away from the economy, and no matter where you take it, it hurts everyone. For example if a rich person can't buy a new yacht, it hurts middle class yacht owners, who in turn can't buy a new TV, ect. Granted, it's probably better to take more from the people who can spare it, but economically speaking it doesn't help. The best thing would be to get government spending.

Because the government isn't spending or investing the money they collect

The PROBLEM with rich people is that the money doesn't recirculate. They don't buy stuff with it. They do invest in other companies, yeah, but when their investment 'pays off' and they make MORE money, where is that MORE money coming from? From us.

Now, it works out that rich people not spending their money frivolously is also very good for the economy, since it keeps prices from ballooning out of control. Essentially what I'm saying is that the rich people don't use their money as buying power. They just use it to get richer. Again, which is a problem, because the money comes from somewhere and it's not often that a rich person becomes a poor one.

Agreed, though, as I said, I'd rather indirectly tax the rich via the kinds of products they buy.

I think you underestimate the vast capital it requires to run the government. Cutting programs would dent it, but come no where near to allowing a flat tax to occur, the lower/middle class to have a livlihood, and still fund the government.

I see delaying the purchase of a yacht a far lesser evil than taking the food from a dinner table of a poor person. If I had my way, the people in the lowest brackets would pay zero taxes. Funny thing is, it probably wouldn't be hard to absorb that lose since their contributions to the government's money is so small anyway(when compared to the upper class), yet that money would mean everything to them.

I've been following where this thread is going, and like some of the discussion that's come up. I don't really have anything to contribute right now, but I just really wanted to say how much I agree with what Kieran has said. He's made some great points, while also being polite and articulate. He phrased his position on percentage taxing well by carefully drawing a balance between our current economy and more socialistic policies, opting for a sensible compromise.

The budget? Dude, they've tried cutting it--it got bigger. The budget is going to continue to grow--we can slow it down at best, but the budget is always going to grow. As governments grow older they grow larger as well.

The only option is to "make the rich pay", because otherwise, who will? The middle class, and that's who the worst burden is falling on right now (note: our middle class is shrinking dramatically).

That's because politicians suck.

The people in the lowest brackets already pay zero taxes.

Wow. That was profound.

Ahh, but if it's invested, it's in circulation. If no one invested, our economy would collapse. Actually, that happened back in the late '20s. Unless you convert it into gold and then bury it, you can't really keep it out of the economy.

Really when you think about it, rich people's money is really just part of a company. Take it away and you take away part of the company. It very hard to just get rid of wealth unless you bury it in the ground.

Obi Kwiet must have fallen asleep during that post, as well as Economics class.

Actually... the great depression was caused by a combination of people using credit, and then making bad investments.

And really, even if your money is sitting in a saving account, it's being used to invest in things by the bank. Banks work on the principle that not everyone will want their money all at once. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened at the start of the great depression. Ouch.

Yes, only problem is, much of the "profit" from these companies than goes back into the pockets of the CEOs, who happen to earn (on a rough average) 400 times more in a year than the average employee for said company. Yes, the company will make a profit, yes the company may "benefit" the economy (like Enron, harhar), but ultimately the rich are just getting richer and the disparity between them and their lower class counterparts is merely broadening.

The racist rednecks, southerners, and old people don't vote Democrat anyway. (With the exception of the old southerners who haven't paid attention to an election for decades and continue to vote for the Dems thinking they're still the conservative party.)